Queens, New York’s most populous borough, is often overlooked in the city’s transit narrative. Yet, as MTA CEO Janno Lieber recently proclaimed a 'golden age of mass transit' during a tour of the LaGuardia Bus Depot, the conversation about the borough’s transportation future has taken an unexpected turn. But here’s the thing: calling this a 'golden age' feels like a PR move masquerading as progress. Let’s unpack why this moment is both promising and deeply flawed.
The Bus Network: A Fix That Feels Temporary
Lieber’s tour highlighted the Queens Bus Network Redesign, which introduced 'rush routes' to connect passengers faster to rail hubs. On paper, this sounds like a win. But here’s where it gets messy: these changes are a band-aid for a system that’s been chronically underfunded. The MTA’s allocation of an extra $35 million annually for Queens buses is a drop in the bucket compared to the $1.5 billion the city spends yearly on subway maintenance. What makes this particularly fascinating is how it reflects a broader trend—transit agencies everywhere are forced to play catch-up with rising demand while budgets remain stagnant. The 'rush routes' might improve efficiency, but they don’t address the root issue: Queens has fewer subway lines per capita than any other borough. This isn’t just a numbers game; it’s a reflection of decades of neglect. If you take a step back and think about it, the redesign feels less like a breakthrough and more like a desperate attempt to justify the status quo.
Subway Modernization: A Tale of Two Lines
Lieber also pointed to improvements in subway signaling on the E, F, M, and R lines. While this is a positive step, the reality is that these upgrades are concentrated on the E and F lines, which serve densely populated areas. Meanwhile, other lines in Queens remain stuck in the 1980s. A detail that I find especially interesting is how the MTA is framing these upgrades as a 'huge success' without acknowledging the gaps. This raises a deeper question: Why is modernization so uneven? Is it because the MTA prioritizes politically expedient projects over systemic overhaul? The answer likely lies in a mix of funding constraints and political calculus. Queens, with its diverse electorate and powerful transit advocates like Borough President Donovan Richards, has become a battleground for competing interests. But this doesn’t mean the fixes are equitable.
Accessibility: Progress, But at What Cost?
The ADA accessibility improvements in Queens—from 20% to 60% of stations by the end of the decade—are worth celebrating. However, this progress is overshadowed by the fact that the MTA still lags behind other major cities in universal design. What many people don’t realize is that accessibility isn’t just about ramps and elevators; it’s about cultural shifts. For example, while the MTA touts these numbers, the lack of accessible buses and train cars outside of subway stations creates a disjointed experience for disabled riders. This is where the MTA’s focus on buses becomes both a strength and a weakness. Buses are flexible, but they’re also prone to delays and overcrowding. The agency’s claim that the LaGuardia Depot is a 'shining example' of collaboration between maintenance and transportation crews feels almost performative. It’s easy to praise teamwork when the system is still failing to meet basic needs.
Political Theater vs. Real Solutions
Lieber’s praise for elected officials like Leroy Comrie and Ed Braunstein is a reminder that transit policy is as much about politics as it is about engineering. But here’s the catch: political support doesn’t always translate to meaningful change. The MTA’s ability to maintain service while other transit systems across America cut services and raised fares is a testament to Governor Kathy Hochul’s influence, but it’s also a warning. When leaders rely on short-term fixes instead of long-term investments, the system remains vulnerable. The 'golden age' narrative is a masterclass in optimism, but it ignores the elephant in the room: climate change. With rising sea levels and extreme weather events, Queens’ transit infrastructure is at risk. Yet, the MTA’s plans for resilience are vague at best. This isn’t just about buses and subways—it’s about survival.
The Golden Age Illusion
In my opinion, the term 'golden age' is a dangerous distraction. It suggests that the current state of Queens’ transit is the pinnacle, when in reality, it’s a fragile equilibrium. The MTA’s achievements are real, but they’re built on a foundation of underinvestment, political maneuvering, and deferred maintenance. What this really suggests is that we’re living in a transitional phase—one where the system is trying to keep up with demand but isn’t prepared for the future. As someone who’s watched transit systems collapse in cities like London and Tokyo, I’m skeptical of any 'golden age' rhetoric. The true test will come when the next crisis hits. Until then, Queens’ riders will keep hoping that this fragile progress holds. But let’s be clear: a golden age isn’t something you declare—it’s something you build, brick by brick, year by year.
